Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1887-02-21
The Proposed Criminal Court,

The Proposed Criminal Court.
To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
That there is necessity for some reform
in the administration of criminal justice in
the county of New Haven is admitted by all
honest thinking men. The records of the
city, borough and justice courts in the
county fully show the large volume of crimi-
nal business that annually flows through
them into the Superior court, to be swal-
lowed in the maslstrom of its nolles. Last
year about 600 cases, half of which were
from the City court of New Haven, were
appealed to the Superior court, of which not
| more than onesi1th were tried. The balance
were disposed of by settlement or nolls, and
| the fact that all minor cases are SO settled or
nolled has become SO well known among the
| criminal community that they make little or
no defense in the lower court, prefsrring to
take their chances in the higher. This is
notably so in liquor cases, a demurrer be-
| ing filed and the accused going to the higher
| court without the shadow of trial, expect
| ing there to escape, either by the failure of
evidence or the act of the States attorney,
without the shadow of fine or cost. Even
|
notable example occurred in the City court
last week. A man who had been repeatedly
arrested and convicted for the same offsnse
was arrested again for indecent exposure. The
evidence was absolutely conclusive. Five
witnesses swore to seeing the man on two
| different days, the 9th and 7th Of this month.
| expose himself in the most outrageous man
| ner to girls or women on the public street.
He was sentenced to $25 for each offence
The attorney at once saw the mans wife and
induced her to pay him $50. For this sum
| the attorney procured bondsman and
agreed to save the man harmless And yet
in every case of appeal the State pays the
| costs.
1t was testified before the committee in
| Hartford that nearly $4,000 was paid from
| the State treasury back to the City court last
year as costs in appealed cases
If this was half of the business of the county
then $12, 900 was paid back to the city, bor-
| ough and justice courts last year in appealed
cases. only a few of which were tried, an
| other few settled upon the payment of a
small amount of money and the balance dis
posed of by nolles, etc. Admit then, that
some reform is necessary, what shall 1t be?
Prof. johnson T. Platt says, and some others
agree with him, that another judge of the
Superior court is all that is required. The
| judges of the Superior court are itinerant.
and hold court in various parts of the
State as civil business requires. If
| there was another judge would he hold
| criminal court in New Haven any more than
| now! 1t was said when the criminal court
was established in Waterbury that that
would relieve New Haven and give more
| time to the trial of criminal causes or reduce
the number of trials so that the New Haven
| cases could be tried. Such has not been the
result The criminal court Of Waterbury
has, say, two hundred cases on its docket,
| but the number in New Haven is as large as
ever and there are no more trials. Even Mr..
Doolittle did not think when before the com
mittee in Hartford that another Judge of
the Superior court would remedy
the evil. He would be absorbed
in civil business and we should
be as bad off as ever. But suppose Judge
was appointed for the Superior court and as
signed to New Haven for the trial of the
class of cases which the bill provides shall go
to the new court, for it must be remembered
that no case where the offense is State prison
can be tried by the new court, and there were
thirty y-seven of these last year from this City
court and probably many more from the
county, enough to keep one judge the entire
ed; his salary is 81 500 year, while a bill!
provides only salary of $4,000 for TIE new
court judge. Is 1t worth 81, 500 wear to
call a man Superior cGurt Judge?
But with new Superio, court Judge you
must also have an assistant State attorney
and the same jury in the new court. If
the new judge was called Superior court
judge all the argument of this class of objec-
| tions would be removed for the bill pro-
vides that the records shall be kept by the
clerk Of the Superior court, and the new
court would probably occupy for large part
of the year the unused criminal court room
in the new Superior court building. But a
5000 Superior court judge would be an
anomaly, and really ought the judges of the
Superior court to give their time to the trial
Of petty cases of Jail offences or fines? And
on the other hand ought there to be failure
of justice because there is no Judge to try
the cases when the evidence can be had, and
often not to be had at all?
Another plan proposed is to give the City
court jury. One argument in favor of a
new court with a jury is, it would at once
prevent, by the certainty of trial, one-half of
the appeals and save that money to the State
| treasury. but suppose a jury given to
the City court in criminal cases and ap-
peal allowed, every person tried would elect
to be tried by jury, and especially if he
| could raise So for lawyer, for the chance
of one man out of twelve is greater
than the chance to influence one judge.
There were nearly 900 cases in the City
court last year. Given /, 900 of these Jury
| trials, or three day, and it would require
| three judges and three court rooms to dis
pose of them, unless the suggestion of Mr..
| Pigott was adopted and the City court Judges
sit days, evenings and Sundays. Bu5 adopt
| the jsry for the City court, what chance
| would there be for conviction in large
majority of cases? Mr.. Pigott in his very
interesting article in the Register objects to a
''jury fresh from the barnyard and the hay
| NOW" to try liquor cases, but he would not
| object to jury from the saloons and street
corners If 1t is difficult now to enforce our
criminal laws, what would it be with a city
jury in the City court paid 81 day for their
services, as ex Judge Robinson suggests. Mr..
Reynolds pays $3.50 for his ''outside poor''
upon the streets.
The only objection Of any weight urged
against ths new court is its cost. This is no
| objection. There would be no cost for a
; court room. There is plenty of room in the
new court building. The salary of the Judge
} is fixed at S3, 900. The bill provides that the
new judge may also hold civil side of the
court when called upon, without extra pay.
This would save $500 or more, and reduce
the actual cost for judge to say $4,000. The
attorney has salary of SO 1000, making for
judge and attorney 81, 800. The jury would
cost $50 day, and it is estim ated would sit
| IT'S days in the year. Costing then for jury in
round numbers &c. coo for the year, $11 ,0OO
would be the entire appropriation for the new
!, court for the year. What would be the returnt
) First, an indefinite amount saved in the
, expense of side judges in the
Common Pleas court, ST00; saved in
costs in cases not appealed, Sc, 600; saved il
costs and fines in eighty-one liquor cases
! supposing fifty convictions and $75 the aver
age cost and fine, So, 750 and last and greatest
| of all the wonderful effect in restraining
crime and encouraging the wouldbe we'll
doers by the certainty of speedy trials and
> sure convictions where guilty, and acquittals